Make government and private enterprise finance pensions properly

Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.

 

Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.

 

Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?

 

Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'?  How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.

Why is this idea important?

Many in private enterprise raided pension funds and had 'payment holidays' when times were good.

 

Now times are bad they whinge about the public sector. They also use arguments of greed and envy for their own purposes.

 

Why not come up with a proper plan to finance pensions for the whole nation that includes both government guarantee and proper investment in valuable assests?

 

Also: why not take steps to stop the asset stripping of pension investments by foreign 'equity investment' organisations, who buy badly managed businesses from pension funds, asset strip them, and the sell them back to the pension funds on the basis that they are 'more efficient'?  How much of our pension money ends up in other countries instead of being properly managed at home? Government could do more to protect against this.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.